View source for Nighteye (Appellant) v LordDeadlyOwl (Respondent) 2020 SDSC 5

[[Category:Case Law|2020-01-28]] [[Category:Supreme Court Cases|2020-01-28]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2020|2020-01-28]]
= Nighteye (Appellant) v LordDeadlyOwl (Respondent) 2020 SDSC 5=

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 28th January 2020
|-
| Justices
| Justice Danyo Judge halfcat
|-
| Held
| Automatically handing a civil case in favour of the plaintiff when the defendant is absent (and when D has not acted maliciously or in contempt) unconstitutionally violates the right to a fair hearing
|-
| Ruling
| 2-0
|-
| Applicable precedent
| An action made unlawful by an unconstitutional Act is not unlawful, 5 Procedure rules must allow for a reasonable degree of leniency, taking into account SimDemocracy is an online community and not real life, 13
|}
== MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Danyo==

''(with Judge halfcat agreeing)''
== Introduction ==

'''[1].''' The appellant originally filed an appeal under the Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act (“the Procedures Act”). They argued that the judge presiding over the civil pre-trial, former Justice Euphyrric, did not follow proper judicial procedure in issuing a summary judgment.

'''[2].''' After the hearing of the appeals case, the Procedures Act was invalidated as unconstitutional under ''In re Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act'', after it was brought to this court’s attention that, amongst a host of other reasons, a redo of the appeal hearing could not take place due to its circular procedure regarding civil mistrials. In that case, the court was unable to reach an agreement as to whether that review was interlocutory (my view), in other words, a review which took place in the middle of this appeals case and is linked to it, or whether it was entirely independent from this case (Chief Justice Slimmy’s view).
== The ambit of the Procedures Act ==

'''[3].''' In order to even begin determining whether Justice Euphyrric’s actions were unlawful, we have to consider two questions beforehand. The first question is whether an appeal can even be allowed to proceed if the grounds of it is based on a now unconstitutional law. The second question is whether an action can be classified as unlawful because it violated a now unconstitutional law.

'''[4].''' In regards to the first question, the court finds that an appeal can be allowed to proceed. There’s no real reason why it shouldn’t be allowed to proceed. As the Supreme Court also has the power to front its own arguments, explanations, and analysis, even if all of the initial grounds for an appeal are no longer valid, it doesn’t mean the entire appeal is invalid and must be stopped from continuing. There can be grounds in which the appellant did not file an appeal from which this court has the power to consider.

'''[5].''' In regards to the second question, the court gives a negative response. An action that was made unlawful by a law which itself is unconstitutional is not unlawful, because the law governing that action is void and of no effect.

'''[6].''' As such, Justice Euphyrric’s actions do not fall under the ambit of the Procedures Act and therefore can not be reviewed with it.

'''[7].''' Even if Justice Euphyrric’s actions were unlawful at the time, the Procedures Act itself is unconstitutional and therefore the actions must be found to be lawful by technicality.
== The ambit of Article 26 of the Constitution ==

'''[8].''' This court believes, however, this case also involves Article 26 (right to a fair hearing). As this was a civil pre-trial, this falls under the ambit of Article 26\.
== Was Article 26 unconstitutionally infringed? ==

'''[9].''' Section 3 of Article 26 allows every person to defend themselves in person or with legal counsel. Justice Euphyrric summarily finding for the plaintiff because the defendant did not show up infringed on this right.

'''[10].''' The next question therefore is whether the infringement was permissible. In other words, was there a compelling justification to infringe on their rights to protect the rights of others, the rights of society as a whole, or the public interest pursuant to Article 33, s1 of the Constitution?

'''[11].''' It is the view of this court that the summary judgment did not protect the rights of others or society as a whole. So the only viable grounds to infringe on Article 26 is the public interest.

'''[12].''' If the defendant repeatedly failed to turn up at an arranged time, or if they deliberately acted in a malicious way that is contemptuous and can be punished by contempt of court, it can be argued the infringement of s3 was permissible under the public interest (and also to protect the right of the plaintiff to receive a fair hearing).

'''[13].''' However, in this case, the defendant failed to turn up at an arranged time once, with the incident being their first time. SimDemocracy is a virtual community. It is wholly unreasonable to expect someone to prioritise and accommodate a virtual court case into their schedule. People have real life emergencies, people have a change of plans, etc. There are many reasons as to why people can’t show up and as a result a degree of leniency not present in real life jurisdictions must be given.

'''[14].''' So while automatically handing the case to the plaintiff would be procedurally correct for the absence of the defendant in a real life context, it was unduly harsh in the context of an online community. The summary judgment was given therefore unconstitutionally infringed on the appellant’s Article 26 rights.
== In regards to this appeal ==

'''[15].''' As pointed out both internally within this court, and external observers of the case, there is almost a sense of irony about this judgment, as the appeal hearing was conducted in absentia without the respondent’s input. If we put two and two together, some may argue that this judgment itself is unconstitutional. However, I respectfully disagree that there is somehow a “judicial paradox” here.

'''[16].''' SimDemocracy is an adversarial system as opposed to an inquisitorial one. This means that, at a lower level, criminal trials and civil proceedings are done with the prosecution (or plaintiff) being pitted against the defence, with judges impartially presiding over them and issuing judgment. In these cases, under an adversarial system, representation means everything. A case will be found in the prosecution (or plaintiff’s) favour if the defendant has no representation, because in criminal trials and civil proceedings, judges possess no liberty to consider or front their own arguments and may only issue judgment on the arguments made in the hearing.

'''[17].''' On the contrary, appeals and judicial reviews are conducted by the Supreme Court. While the initial hearing of arguments for the appeal and judicial review is done using an adversarial format, as Justices we have full liberty to use our front our own arguments, evaluation, and analysis and free rein to cite other authorities and sources not mentioned during the hearing. As such, even when one of the sides do not participate in the hearing, the hearing itself will not be prejudiced because the Supreme Court will front arguments on behalf of both parties.

'''[18].''' Therefore, the conduct of this appeal itself is constitutionally consistent. There is no “judicial paradox” here, although we can appreciate the sense of irony. In any case, this court has learnt from its own mistakes and should endeavour to exhibit a reasonable degree of leniency which this judgment now legally binds the lower courts to give.
== Verdict ==

'''[19].''' The summary judgment issued in ''LordDeadlyOwl v NightEye'' is unconstitutional and is quashed. A redo of the proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law.


==Citations==
<references />